Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sélacien34

It seems, where I left off, that the morphotype of the species M. nolfi has been highly contested because of incomplete or very similar dentitions to those of other species. I knew the relationship that was made with I. affinis, Mr. praecursor, and also M. americanus, and I knew that Mr. nolfi has been found in the London clay and Kazakhstan. Zhelezko and Koslov have also redescribed in 1999, M. nolfi for M. americana-like teeth with more defined cusplets from the Ypresian of Kazakhstan, and have also included included M. americana in the Bartonian of Kazakhstan.

But I did not knew that M. nolfi was the current nomenclature for I. schoutedeni, what you seem to suggest.

I have not yet found sufficient documents and I try to understand the current kinship ties that have been established, and I wonder what to think. This link shows I. schoutedeni, which thus would be Mr. nolfi if I have well understood what you said, as the direct ancestor of Mr. praecursor, but it hasn't been wrote directly by a specialist it seems, and this is visibly obsolete for the rest of the lineage evolution which is no longer valid.

http://www.mineralienatlas.de/lexikon/index.php/Pal%E4ontologisches%20Portrait/Haie/Isurus

I have only one tooth from M. nolfi and little information in the end. I have found a publication from King et al 2013, that describes 2 teeth of M. nolfi from the Aktulagay section of West Kazakhstan, the upper side tooth has lateral cusplets, as the lateral teeth have too on the other documents that I had. What is strange for me is that the lateral teeth of C. schoutedeni, the first form, have less developed lateral cusps, which are stronger for M. nolfi specie, to disappear again with Mr. praecursor, or remain very weakly.

post-0-0-37653100-1401956660_thumb.png

My M. nolfi tooth from the London clay

post-0-0-43394100-1401956708_thumb.png

C. schoutedeni from The Cretaceous of the Congo

post-0-0-72836400-1401956784_thumb.png

Macrorhizodus nolfi - Aktulagay section W. Kazakhstan from King et al. 2013

post-0-0-42777400-1401956844_thumb.pngpost-0-0-20791400-1401956879_thumb.jpgpost-0-0-88705200-1401956903_thumb.png

Macrorhizodus nolfi

post-0-0-56887700-1401956935_thumb.pngpost-0-0-33897400-1401956968_thumb.jpg

Macrorhizodus praecursor

post-11962-0-50997900-1401958211_thumb.png

Macrorhizodus praecursor with vestigial cusps

Selacien34,

Thanks for the information and figures. FF member non-remanie and I spent Sunday afternoon trading emails. He informed me of the presence of Macrorhizodus nolfi in the Ypresian of Kazakhstan and it is also figured in the book, "London Clay Fossil of Kent and Essex. It is a very rare species. I should have remembered M. nolfi. I can't believe I forgot about it.

Jess

Edited by Sélacien34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Mud

This is a wonderful resource for identifying  Cretaceous and early tertiary shark teeth.

I wonder - if the original posters are ok, if this would have a better home in the ID section and with a modified title? I can't see the tags on my phone, but thought that the title "Finally" doesn't capture the essence of this very informative thread.

Just a thought. @Northern Sharks And @Harry Pristis? I know there is a search function, but no harm in making things more prominent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Pristis

 

I have no objection to making the thread easier to find.  What say you, Kevin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Sharks

I've been away camping so I'm late to the party, but I have no issues either if it gets moved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
siteseer

I stumbled onto this thread myself several years ago and have been referring people to it since then.  It started as a transitional Palaeocarcharodon discussion but grew into a Moroccan sharks and stratigraphy review.  In other words your basic, rambling conversation about sharks when collectors get together.  I would leave it in Member Collections but edit the title to something like "Finally..a discussion of fossil sharks from Morocco.  I would then tag it with: Cretaceous, Cenozoic, Paleogene, Paleocene, Eocene, Maastrichtian, Danian, Thanetian, Ypresian, sharks, stratigraphy, Cretalamna, Cretolamna, Parotodus, Palaeocarcharodon.

 

Jess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctor Mud
5 hours ago, siteseer said:

I stumbled onto this thread myself several years ago and have been referring people to it since then.  It started as a transitional Palaeocarcharodon discussion but grew into a Moroccan sharks and stratigraphy review.  In other words your basic, rambling conversation about sharks when collectors get together.  I would leave it in Member Collections but edit the title to something like "Finally..a discussion of fossil sharks from Morocco.  I would then tag it with: Cretaceous, Cenozoic, Paleogene, Paleocene, Eocene, Maastrichtian, Danian, Thanetian, Ypresian, sharks, stratigraphy, Cretalamna, Cretolamna, Parotodus, Palaeocarcharodon.

 

Jess

Leaving it here, tagging and a more appropriate title would would work too.

 

Just something to make it searchable as I think there is useful information in here.

 

In some areas the number of pinned subjects has grown large, so making threads searchable should be the priority I think for thread visibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×